Kim Davies [kim§cynosure.com.au] wrote:
> Quoting Vic Cinc on Saturday November 25, 2006:
> | 
> | another looming "solution" looking for a prolem, is internationalised domain names,
> | for which there is no demand. if auda wants idn then it should pay
> | for all 20 odd registrar systems to be modified to handle idn, because
> | for most registrars its going to be a non-recoverable investement.
> 
> Why? If a registrar doesn't want to implement IDN support, they
> shouldn't have to. Let the registrars who want to sell them invest in
> whatever technology is required, and if Enetica doesn't want to sell
> IDNs, fine. Don't.

thats a novel idea isnt it? that a business should be entitled to run on
a commercial basis rather then on the whims of some entrenched counter interests
in what is supposed to be "self regulation".

what has happened to date has been here is the cut over date, either
implement what you are told or get switched off. 

thats not appropriate and unless auda makes a business case for future
changes then it will be paying for them.

dispains attitude towards registrars at the last registrar conference
was really quite unfortunate. we have been asking for asic access for 4
years and to be told auda can find $1.5m to fund some dumb dipshit
worthless idea but cant find $400 to fire up a pty ltd to get asic access
for registrars was deeply deeply regretable.

Vic